Lucy Letby press conference

[Viviennemary]

There is a press conference going on now trying to get Lucy Letby's conviction overturned. From what I read the guilty verdict was sound. All those ill babies dying when she was alone with them. Just a coincidence? Already been refused an appeal.

Though it is important to note that LL has not been allowed to appeal.

Her team have applied to the two relevant courts of appeal but the applications for permission to appeal have both been dismissed without any appeal heard.

This counts the same as being allowed to appeal, but losing. Which is why the case is before the CCRC and why the team have chosen to do a press release of their entire investigation that forms the basis to question the safety of LL’s conviction.

It not any good if only half the evidence is used

or the video evidence is used in such a way that it’s misleading

It’s not that they did or they didn’t, but they’re not medical experts. So it’s very difficult to dispute information given by experts in that field, as a legal expert. They can only work with what they have.

Same. I am a lawyer, previously worked in criminal law but it’s no longer my specialisms. That’s why I’ve followed this with interest. Circumstantial evidence is not usually permitted - but here the argument was the volume of such evidence gave it enough weight. I listened to the “Trial” podcast day by day and similarly to your friend, shocked at what played out.

@LoremIpsumCici Only the courts can hear an appeal. The CCRC looks at new information to see if an appeal should be launched again. The CCRC investigation is not an appeal.

I feel sorry for everyone involved in this case. It is a tragedy. However, if I were the Canadian doctor I would have done the same thing. His research work was misused by the prosecution to convict someone for a life sentence. I can totally understand why he got involved and why he wanted a press conference to explain.

Apparently she was encouraged by her therapist to write out what came into her head, resulting in the notes.

The medical expertise and motivations of the prosecution’s ‘medical expert’ is also now under question… it just seems like a complete mess, I’m so sorry for the families.

I've read UK police are increasingly using polygraph tests. I understand the pros & cons although with highly trained professionals who can spot signs of cheating they can be 80-90 % accurate. I don't understand why this isn't regularly offered to suspects as base from which to work on with all other evidence taken into account.

Dewi Evans. In another trial his work was dismissed as unreliable I understand. I heard they asked for his comment on todays work and he said nothing?

I know there is no evidence of LL being neurodivergent.

I definitely am though, and I was an ICU nurse for many years.

I was obsessed with taking the sickest patients for the adrenaline.

I was standoffish, hard to work with, clinically excellent and usually got on better with the doctors than the nurses.

So much of the behavioural side of the evidence is strikingly familiar.

ASD and psychopathy/personality disorder are often confused.

Not entirely sure what my point is.

I know. But what I was saying is that they have applied to the CCRC because the two applications to appeal via the courts were dismissed. LL did not get permission to appeal.

the defence did call that expert at the appeal and the appeal panel dismissed his evidence.

I've had my doubts about her guilt from the start and really questioned as to whether they came from the fact that the photo most used of her was the angelic nurse one (blonde, white, pretty, young)...

Ultimately, I believed that my doubts did stem from the legitimacy and robustness of evidence - and lack of it - and suspicions of a cover up (but I have seriously questioned how vulnerable I am to unconscious bias).

I knew she was doomed the moment the press published the so-called confessional note, and also don't think if I had been on jury I'd have come to any other conclusion than 'guilty' on the basis of what was presented at the trial. However, there was no evidence of her guilt, only circumstantial factors and enough was mentioned to raise valid concerns about safety, protocols and negligence at the hospital.

I can't begin to imagine what the families of those babies must be going through, its horrific on all levels for them. The call from a retrial isn't just about justice for Letby, but justice for them too.

...And justice for all of us, everyone is at risk if systemic failings & cover ups were responsible.

Yes, some of the evidence from the panel was previously submitted in the written applications for appeal which were dismissed. No appeal was held.

The legal team didn’t dispute at the time due to their own lack of medical knowledge. You don’t know what you don’t know and the more you know the more you realise you don’t know iyswim. The expert witnesses testimonies at the time are now being discredited as they are found to be seriously flawed.

I’m an experienced ICU nurse (adult not child or neonates so there may be some differences that I’m not appreciating, happy to be corrected by neonate colleagues!) and I’m not at all convinced by the evidence. I listened to “the trial of Lucy letby” podcast ran by the daily mail, despite it being made by the daily mail it was very well don’t and covered the evidence impartially in my opinion. So many “smoking gun” pieces of evidence just didn’t ring true to me.

Her involvement in more deaths/ collapses/ emergencies than her colleagues isn’t particularly surprising. I don’t know my own statistics but I would guess I’m present for far more deaths than my colleagues. Mostly because I’ve done additional training in palliative care and one of my strengths is supporting grieving families. If there is a patient who is expected to die or we are planning to “withdraw” that day and I am on I will more than likely be there nurse that day. I once had 3 patients die in 3 days. Also she was considered very experienced so it makes total sense that she was given babies that were particularly unstable and prone to collapse. This isn’t evidence of guilt.

the Doctor that testified that he caught her red handed standing over a baby in distress having silenced the alarms and not doing anything is in my opinion nonsense. Unstable critically unwell patients often have a wobble/ desaturation/ drop in bp after interventions such as position changes/ suctioning etc. often they don’t need emergency treatment and it would be quite common to stay calm, stay alert, watch closely for them to recover then move on. You don’t need an alarm blaring while you do this so it would be standard to silence it and then summon help if you feel you need it. I can’t tell you how often these situations arise in an ICU, multiple times and hour. And us experienced ICU nurses aren’t running about in a panic every time a person desaturates we can deal with it calmly and know when to call for help. The fact he even testified that it was unusual when it really didn’t sound at all unusual did give me the feeling he was changing his opinion to fit the narrative.

as a side note we have discussed this care often in work, many of the consultants followed the case closely and no one I have spoke to is persuaded to her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

What did the CCRC have to do with today's press conference?

So they didn’t call their own experts in her defence?

Unstable critically unwell patients often have a wobble/ desaturation/ drop in bp after interventions such as position changes/ suctioning etc. often they don’t need emergency treatment and it would be quite common to stay calm, stay alert, watch closely for them to recover then move on. You don’t need an alarm blaring while you do this so it would be standard to silence it and then summon help if you feel you need it. I can’t tell you how often these situations arise in an ICU, multiple times and hour. And us experienced ICU nurses aren’t running about in a panic every time a person desaturates we can deal with it calmly and know when to call for help.

I've previously seen the same point made elsewhere, that she may well have been acting entirely appropriately in the situation.

I don’t mean to be crude but this is what I meant when I said LL’s social difficulties have been used against her as evidence of her guilt. Her “behaviour” has been interpreted as evidence of guilty - whereas I think she is probably just a little eccentric and her guilt and behaviour are not interlinked at all.

I think it’s actually worse because, for example, leading hospital cardiologists are never going to be on a jury - they’d be excused/exempt because of their profession. I’m not saying everyone who doesn’t work is less intelligent than everyone who does - I’m just saying that those in the most demanding professions which arguably require the most intelligence, are unlikely to be represented on a jury - I mean a lung transplant surgeon is not going to take 3 months off to sit on a jury! Ironically lawyers, who know the law, are ineligible. The list of people /professions who are ineligible or excused is quite long - here is a link to the one for Scotland. Box C basically allows almost all health related professionals to be permanently excused if they are still registered/working.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/0ipfxkgl/guide-to-jury-service-eligibility.pdf

They did yes. But there’s such a range of opinions here.

@Cunningfungus yes. The same argument is true (actually to more to a greater degree) with magistrates. An unpaid, voluntary position. It’s not going to attract an even cross section of society is it.

@LoremIpsumCici Yes. That’s correct. Just because the CCRC looks at new opinions, it doesn’t mean they will ask for an appeal to go ahead. There’s a lot of speculation on this thread.

Also we do have a system of appeal and CCRC so of course LL can use the legal systems available. There can be miscarriages of Justice and inevitably victims and families are upset but that doesn’t mean legal systems should be set aside. Neither does it mean she will be successful.